This article presents a schema designed to guide the development of theory, methodology, and research related to the psychoeducational assessment of African-American learners with gifts and talents. The relationships among African-American worldviews, needed psychoeducational assessment theory and methodology, and desirable assessment and identification instruments and practices are explored. Assessment paradigms, instruments, and practices most reliable and valid for identifying gifts and talents among African-American learners are offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlampreseJ. A., & ErlangerW. J. (1988). No gift wasted: Effective strategies for educating highly able, disadvantaged students in mathematics and science. Vol. I: Findings. Washington, DC: Cosmos Corporation.
2.
AndersonJ. A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 2–9.
3.
ArchambaultF. X. (1992). Alternative assessment and the evaluation of programs for the gifted and talented. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, Storrs.
4.
AsanteM. K. (1988). Afrocentricity. Trenton, NJ: African World Press.
5.
BaldwinA. Y. (1984). The Baldwin Identification Matrix 2 for the Identification of the Gifted and Talented: A handbook for its use. New York: Trillium Press.
6.
BaskaL. (1986a). Alternatives to traditional testing. Roeper Review, 8(3), 181–184.
7.
BaskaL. (1986b). The use of the Raven advanced progressive matrices for the selection of magnet junior high school students. Roeper Review, 8(3), 181–184.
8.
BoykinA. W. (1983). The academic performance of Afro-American children. In SpenceJ. (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 321–371). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
9.
ColeM., & ScribnerS. (1973). Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education. Science Education, 182, 553–559.
10.
CourtJ. H., & RavenJ. (1982). Research and references: 1982 update. London: H. K. Lewis.
11.
DabneyM. (1983, July). Perspectives and directions in assessment of the black child. Paper presented at the meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Atlanta.
12.
DabneyM. (1988). An alternative model for identification of potentially gifted students: A case study. In JonesR. L. (Ed.), Psychoeducational assessment of minority group children: A casebook (pp. 273–294). Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry.
13.
DenoS. L., & FuchsL. S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8), 1–16.
14.
DixonV. J. (1976). World views and research methodology. In KingL. M.DixonV. J., & NoblesW. W. (Eds.), African philosophy: Assumptions and paradigms for research on black persons (pp. 51–102). Los Angeles: Fanon Center Publication.
15.
FeuersteinR. (1968). The learning potential of assessment device: A new method for assessing modifiability of the cognitive functioning of socioculturally disadvantaged adolescents. Unpublished manuscript, Israel Foundation Trustees, Tel Aviv.
16.
FeuersteinR. (1977). Mediated learning experience: A theoretical basis for cognitive human modifiability during adolescence. Research to practice in mental retardation: Proceedings of the 4th Congress of IASMD. Vol. 2. Education and training (pp. 105–116). Baltimore: University Park Press.
17.
FrasierM. (1989). A perspective on identifying black students for gifted programs. In MakerC. J. & SchieverS. W. (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities, Vol. II (pp. 213–255). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
18.
FrasierM. (1990, April). The equitable identification of gifted and talented children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
19.
FuchsL. S., & FuchsD. (1986). Curriculum-based assessment of progress toward long- and short-term goals. Journal of Special Education, 20, 69–82.
20.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
21.
GordonE. W. (1985). Social science knowledge production and minority experiences. The Journal of Negro Education, 54(2), 117–133.
22.
GouldS. J. (1977). Ever since Darwin. New York: Norton.
23.
GouldS. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.
24.
GuthrieR. V. (1976). Even the rat was white. New York: Harper & Row.
25.
HarrisJ. J., & FordD. Y. (1991). Identifying and nurturing the promise of gifted Black American children. Journal of Negro Education, 60(1), 3–18.
26.
HaywoodH. C. (1988). Dynamic assessment: The learning potential assessment device. In JonesR. L. (Ed.), Psychoeducational assessment of minority group children: A casebook (pp. 39–63). Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry.
27.
HilliardA. G. (1976). Alternatives to I.Q. testing: An approach to the identification of “gifted” minority children. Final Report, Sacramento Division of Special Education, California State Department of Education. (ERIC Document: Reproduction Service No. ED 147009).
28.
HilliardA. G. (1984). I.Q. thinking as the emperor's new clothes: A critique of Jensen's bias in mental testing. In ReynoldsC. R. & BrownR. T. (Eds.), Perspectives in mental testing (pp. 139–169). New York: Plenum Press.
29.
HowardK. (1990). Making the portfolio read. Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing, 12(2), 4–8.
30.
JenkinsM. D. (1936). A socio-psychological study of Negro children of superior intelligence. Journal of Negro Education, 5(2), 175–190.
31.
JensenA. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.
32.
JohnsonS. T.StarnesW. T.GregoryD., & BlaylockA. (1985). Program of assessment, diagnosis, and instruction (PADI): Identifying and nurturing potentially gifted and talented minority students. The Journal of Negro Education, 54(3), 416–430.
33.
KaminL. J. (1974). The science and politics of I.Q. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
KaminL. J. (1975). Social and legal consequences of I.Q. tests as classification instruments: Some warnings from our past. Journal of School Psychology, 13(4), 317–323.
35.
KaplanA. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler.
36.
KaufmanA. S., & HarrisonP. L. (1986). Intelligence tests and gifted assessment: What are the positives. Roeper Review, 8(3), 154–159.
37.
KaufmanA. S., & KaufmanN. L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
38.
MaurierH. (1979). Do we have an African philosophy? In WrightR. A. (Ed.), African philosophy: An introduction (pp. 1–17), (McDevittM., Trans.). Washington, DC: University of America Press.
39.
NaglieriJ. A. (1985a). Matrix Analogies Test—Short Form. New York: Psychological Corporation.
40.
NaglieriJ. A. (1985b). Matrix Analogies Test—Expanded Form. New York: Psychological Corporation.
41.
NaglieriJ. A., & PrewettP. N. (1990). Nonverbal intelligence measure: A selected review of instruments and their use. In ReynoldsC. R. & KamphausR. W. (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Intelligence and achievement (pp. 348–370). New York: Guilford Press.
42.
NicholsE. J. (1976). The philosophical aspects of cultural difference. Unpublished table, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
43.
NoblesW. W. (1983). Critical analysis of scholarship on black family life. Final Report, United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, Washington, DC.
44.
NoblesW. W. (1987). Psychometrics and African-American reality: A question of cultural antimony. The Negro Educational Review, 38, 45–55.
45.
NoblesW. W. (1991). African philosophy: Foundations for Black psychology. In JonesR. L. (Ed.), Black psychology (pp. 47–63). Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry.
46.
OgbuJ. (1988). Human intelligence testing: A cultural-ecological perspective. National Forum, 68(2), 23–29.
47.
PattonJ. M.PrillamanD.LaycockV., & Van Tassel-Baska(1989). A research and demonstration project for culturally diverse, low income, and handicapped gifted and talented learners. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
48.
PattonJ. M.PrillamanD., & Van Tassel-BaskaJ. (1990). The nature and extent of programs for the disadvantaged gifted in the United States and territories. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(3), 94–96.
49.
RavenJ. C. (1938). Standard progressive matrices. London: H. K. Lewis.
50.
RavenJ. C. (1947a). Coloured progressive matrices. London: H. K. Lewis.
51.
RavenJ. C. (1947b). Advanced progressive matrices. London: H. K. Lewis.
52.
RenzulliJ. S. (1973). Talent potential in minority group students. Exceptional Children, 39, 437–444.
53.
RichertE. S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(4), 149–154.
54.
RichertE. S.AlvinoJ., & McDonnelR. (1982). The national report on identification: Assessment and recommendations for comprehensive identification of gifted and talented youth. Sewell, NJ: Educational Improvement Center-South.
55.
SalviaJ., & YsseldykeJ. E. (1988). Assessment in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton and Mifflin.
56.
SattlerJ. M. (1982). Assessment of children's intelligence and special abilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
57.
SattlerJ. M.HilliardA.LambertN.AlbeeG., & JensenA. (1981, August). Intelligence tests on trial: Larry P. and PASE. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
58.
ShadeB. J. (1978). Social-psychological characteristics of achieving black children. The Negro Educational Review, 29(2), 80–86.
59.
SternbergR. (1985). Beyond I.Q. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
60.
SternbergR. (1991). Giftedness according to the triarchic theory of human intelligence. In ColangeloN. & DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 45–53). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
61.
TorranceE. P. (1977). Discovery and nurturance of giftedness in the culturally different. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
62.
TorranceE. P. (1987). Using tests of creative thinking to guide the teaching of creative behavior. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
63.
TorranceE. P. (in press). The blazing drive: The creative personality. Buffalo, NY: Bearly.
64.
ValenciaR. R. (1979). Comparison of intellectual performance of Chicano and Anglo third grade boys on the Raven's coloured progressive matrices. Psychology in the Schools, 16(3), 448–453.
65.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.PattonJ., & PrillamanD. (1989). Disadvantaged gifted learners at-risk for educational attention. Focus on Exceptional Children, 22(3), 1–16.
66.
VernonP. E. (1969). Intelligence and cultural environment. London: Methuen.
67.
WardT.WardS., & PattonJ. (1992). An analysis of the utility of the matrix analogies test with at-risk gifted learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
68.
WardT.WardS.LandrumM., & PattonJ. (1992). Examination of a new protocol for the identification of at-risk gifted learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
